It's impossible to reduce our debt to $0 under our current monetary system. I know some of you are aware of how central banking and debt based money works, but this is one of the best explanations I've seen.

The reality is it's a profitable game for the owners of the feds and we are the pawns. When Obama was a senator he was dead set against raising the debt ceiling. Now that he's the president he whines on TV that it has to be done.

The reality is nobody wants it to implode on their watch. Just a matter of time but even then the party in power will just blame the one before them!

Hmm....Wish I could buy stock in the fed!

Rohirrim

10-22-2013, 05:17 PM

The Tea Party is crying for a debt fix while doing everything in their power to stall the economy. If the radical extremists on the Right were gone tomorrow and our government could come together, agree on some cuts and some stimulus spending, plus raising taxes, while putting together a long term budget, business would start getting back to work, making long term plans, and hiring people. Then, when the economy got rolling again, we could deal with our debts. It will never happen while fanatics like Cruz are more addicted to destroying Obama's presidency than they are to doing what's best for the American people.

Meck77

10-22-2013, 05:41 PM

It's interesting how trying to run a government with a budget has become "radical".

How far America has fallen.

Rohirrim

10-22-2013, 08:54 PM

It's interesting how trying to run a government with a budget has become "radical".

How far America has fallen.

You're not going to fix the deficit by stalling the economy. Will - Never - Happen.

peacepipe

10-22-2013, 09:12 PM

It's interesting how trying to run a government with a budget has become "radical".

How far America has fallen.

It's not radical to run a gov with a budget, just your dumbass ideas on how to do it are.

Arkie

10-22-2013, 11:14 PM

You're not going to fix the deficit by stalling the economy. Will - Never - Happen.

It's mathematically impossible to fix the deficit with deficit spending. If you borrow a dollar into existence, it has to be paid back plus interest. So even if you don't spend it (no chance of that), you still have to borrow additional money to cover the interest, pay off the debt, and arrive back at square one with more debt than before.

Arkie

10-22-2013, 11:39 PM

Why is debt of $0 <i>a priori</i> a Good Thing?

It's better than debt of $17 trillion, but our generation didn't really have much control. The Federal Reserve and IRS were created exactly 100 years ago. That generation had more control over our fate by creating new false prosperity for the short-term. But we have control over our grandchildren's fate. They have no choice but to be saddled with the debt we pass on to them, and the policies that create it. It could reach a quadrillion in their lifetime. That's 1000 trillion. Interest rates won't be zero forever, so that will compound the problem. No pun intended.

Rohirrim

10-23-2013, 06:55 AM

It's mathematically impossible to fix the deficit with deficit spending. If you borrow a dollar into existence, it has to be paid back plus interest. So even if you don't spend it (no chance of that), you still have to borrow additional money to cover the interest, pay off the debt, and arrive back at square one with more debt than before.

You're missing the point. It's also mathematically impossible to pay off debt while the economy continues to backslide. If the economy is stalled, you'll keep going backwards. An improved economy means more revenue. The ridiculous tax breaks of Reagan/Bush need to be rescinded. I think it is now obvious to everybody that the radical Right Wing faction in this country puts destroying Obama ahead of getting this economy working again.

Garcia Bronco

10-23-2013, 08:09 AM

All we're doing at this point is kicking the can down the road. Pay now...pay later, but we will pay.

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 08:09 AM

You're missing the point. It's also mathematically impossible to pay off debt while the economy continues to backslide. If the economy is stalled, you'll keep going backwards. An improved economy means more revenue. The ridiculous tax breaks of Reagan/Bush need to be rescinded. I think it is now obvious to everybody that the radical Right Wing faction in this country puts destroying Obama ahead of getting this economy working again.

Yeah because taking money out of the private sector and giving it to our obviously super-competent and super-efficient federal government is the only answer. LOL

Rohirrim

10-23-2013, 08:25 AM

Yeah because taking money out of the private sector and giving it to our obviously super-competent and super-efficient federal government is the only answer. LOL

Private sector? Oh, you mean the Cayman Islands. LOL

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 08:30 AM

Private sector? Oh, you mean the Cayman Islands. LOL

If it's good enough for Obama's Treasury Secretary, it's good enough for me. :)

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 08:40 AM

It's better than debt of $17 trillion, but our generation didn't really have much control. The Federal Reserve and IRS were created exactly 100 years ago. That generation had more control over our fate by creating new false prosperity for the short-term. But we have control over our grandchildren's fate. They have no choice but to be saddled with the debt we pass on to them, and the policies that create it. It could reach a quadrillion in their lifetime. That's 1000 trillion. Interest rates won't be zero forever, so that will compound the problem. No pun intended.

What's worse? A $500 debt or a $5,000 debt?

Meck77

10-23-2013, 09:28 AM

Yeah because taking money out of the private sector and giving it to our obviously super-competent and super-efficient federal government is the only answer. LOL

Seriously. The owners of the Fed love the sheep who think it's best to raise taxes. Oh let me rephrase that. The people that want higher taxes don't want to pay them. They want OTHERS to pay them.

I'm all for equitable taxes but the reality is tens of millions don't even pay them at all!

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 09:47 AM

Seriously. The owners of the Fed love the sheep who think it's best to raise taxes. Oh let me rephrase that. The people that want higher taxes don't want to pay them. They want OTHERS to pay them.

I'm all for equitable taxes but the reality is tens of millions don't even pay them at all!

The owners of the Fed want low taxes and high spending, as that maximizes their profit. What sane people want is higher taxes and lower spending, which minimizes the Fed profit.

Attacking the problem from both ends over a period of years is the only sane way to deal with the problem. The thing being labeled as "radical" is the idea that we can just lop off the entire sum of the deficit (including defaulting on current debts) in one fell swoop and that that won't just cause more problems than we already have.

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 10:09 AM

The owners of the Fed want low taxes and high spending, as that maximizes their profit. What sane people want is higher taxes and lower spending, which minimizes the Fed profit.

Attacking the problem from both ends over a period of years is the only sane way to deal with the problem. The thing being labeled as "radical" is the idea that we can just lop off the entire sum of the deficit (including defaulting on current debts) in one fell swoop and that that won't just cause more problems than we already have.

We really need a flat tax. Or at least a much flatter tax. So people start to take some of our federal excesses a little more personally.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 11:00 AM

And by "higher taxes" you mean "for people other than me" :)

Nope, as someone sitting comfortably within the 5%, I'm arguing to tax myself too. That doesn't mean, of course, that I think that the upper 1% should be paying less than half of what I do.

We really need a flat tax. Or at least a much flatter tax. So people start to take some of our federal excesses a little more personally.

The problem is not rate. The problem is not a progressive income tax system. Even "the 47%" pay tax (FICA tax, excise taxes, etc.).

The problem is how we've structured taxes. There's no good argument for the current regressive FICA taxes. There's not good reason for a 15% LTCG rate for people who derive their income from dividends & cap gains (rather than actually producing something).

Why should the shareholders of ACME corp only pay 15% tax on their income, while the people actually doing the work get taxed as much as 40-50% (realistically after deductions 35%+ in income and FICA taxes for the high earning employees) for their contribution?

Why should a poverty level earner be paying 12.4% in SS taxes, when someone making $150k is only paying 8.7%?

Meck77

10-23-2013, 11:32 AM

So you make over 200k/year eh Fedyakin? That's what top 5% is based on some quick research I did. So are you willing to do your part and just send in "extra" money to the IRS out of the kindness of your heart? There are after all more people on government assistance than every before that need help from you.

Or do you prefer to donate your money directly to charities of your choice?

Do you think that YOUR income can be better allocated BY YOU or do you think the GOVERNMENT can do a better job with your income?

orinjkrush

10-23-2013, 11:34 AM

the concept of "interest" means "the debt" cannot ever be mathematically "zeroed out".

the real battle is going on between the Keynesians and the Von Mises types over the importance and relevance of "debt".

irrespective of philosophical viewpoint, its all just imaginary digits on someone's excel spreadsheet.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 11:37 AM

So you make over 200k/year eh Fedyakin? That's what top 5% is based on some quick research I did. So are you willing to do your part and just send in "extra" money to the IRS out of the kindness of your heart? There are after all more people on government assistance than every before that need help from you.

Or do you prefer to donate your money directly to charities of your choice?

Do you think that YOUR income can be better allocated BY YOU or do you think the GOVERNMENT can do a better job with your income?

We're talking about fixing the deficit and debt here. Do try to keep up.

Meck77

10-23-2013, 11:40 AM

We're talking about fixing the deficit and debt here. Do try to keep up.

:rofl:

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. It's ok. You not answering the question speaks for itself.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 11:52 AM

:rofl:

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. It's ok. You not answering the question speaks for itself.

No matter how well I manage my income, it won't help paying of the debt unless I hand over part of that income in tax.

As for the idiocy of the first part of your last comment, only a buffoon would think that was a worthwhile argument. Even if I gave 100% of my money to the IRS, wouldn't even be perceptible. Hell, even if Warren Buffet handed over 100% of his current assets, it wouldn't make a significant dent.

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 12:06 PM

The problem is how we've structured taxes. There's no good argument for the current regressive FICA taxes. There's not good reason for a 15% LTCG rate for people who derive their income from dividends & cap gains (rather than actually producing something).

I'll agree that the structure underneath the marginal rates renders them a pretty useless measurement.

I wouldn't mind seeing them pay more actual dollars than they sometimes get away with. But that kind of reform needs to be coupled with ending this:

The American people are such suckers. Sometimes, it's just depressing. While Bush was flushing trillions down the toilet and not vetoing a single Right Wing earmark or slab of government pork, nobody on the Right even mentioned the debt or the deficit. People forget, Clinton left a surplus! The second Obama gets inaugurated it becomes the primary focus of their hysteria. Now they've reformed! They've seen the error of their ways!

:bs:

This is just another political club to use on the head of Obama. If Romney had won, nobody on the Right would have mentioned it again. If they were serious about it, they would stop all their fanatical grandstanding and actually come up with a program of military spending cuts, tax raises and restructuring, entitlement cuts, etc. that were reasonable and had a chance of creating bipartisanship. They would agree to a year long budget that would allow business to plan long term and get back to work instead of their manufactured, quarterly panic attacks. Never going to happen. It's nothing more than political noise.

Instead, their leaders, like McConnell, are still loading home-town pork onto the debt ceiling agreement with Rand Paul coming out to defend it. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Meck77

10-23-2013, 12:54 PM

The American people are such suckers..

Yes they are. There are some that still think there is a difference between the republicans and democrats. Does this rhetoric sound familiar? In the video Obama says it's irresponsible to run up a credit card/raise debt ceiling. He goes on to say it's unpatriotic!!!

The reality is it's one big bubble that will pop. Neither party wants it to pop on their watch. It's the bubble of all bubbles that needs a bubble to sustain the bubble.

Ironically enough the same people you call radicals are the only group that sees the train wreck coming that I think you see Ro.

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 01:06 PM

The American people are such suckers. Sometimes, it's just depressing. While Bush was flushing trillions down the toilet and not vetoing a single Right Wing earmark or slab of government pork, nobody on the Right even mentioned the debt or the deficit. People forget, Clinton left a surplus! The second Obama gets inaugurated it becomes the primary focus of their hysteria. Now they've reformed! They've seen the error of their ways!

I think the bigger difference has to do with unity in government vs opposition. We all claim to hate it, but in reality there's little else more dangerous to us than unified thinking in Washington.

That surplus was the product of political conflict coupled with a relatively strong economy. But it can't be called the "Clinton Surplus" any more than the recent sequester could be called the "Obama Sequester"

They're not kings. Whether we'd like them to be or not.

Rohirrim

10-23-2013, 01:08 PM

Yes they are. There are some that still think there is a difference between the republicans and democrats. Does this rhetoric sound familiar? In the video Obama says it's irresponsible to run up a credit card/raise debt ceiling. He goes on to say it's unpatriotic!!!

The reality is it's one big bubble that will pop. Neither party wants it to pop on their watch. It's the bubble of all bubbles that needs a bubble to sustain the bubble.

Ironically enough the same people you call radicals are the only group that sees the train wreck coming that I think you see Ro.

They don't want to fix it. They want to use it to destroy the other party. Big difference.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 01:23 PM

I'll agree that the structure underneath the marginal rates renders them a pretty useless measurement.

I wouldn't mind seeing them pay more actual dollars than they sometimes get away with. But that kind of reform needs to be coupled with ending this:

The problem is the overall structure. Pointing at one part of the taxation is just self delusion:

The lower earners don't pay much income tax (for many zero), but they pay a lot of FICA tax (17%). The upper earners pay a low amount of income tax (for many zero or effectively zero) because they don't earn "regular" income, and pay very little FICA tax (FICA is regressive and only applies to "regular" income). In betweeners pay high FICA and high income tax.

Add in state and local taxes and it becomes comically (darkly) lopsided toward low and middle incomes.

But I agree, that the reform has to be across the board. Want the feel good prospect of reducing the 47% income tax gap, then you better be willing to uncap SS FICA (along with an overall rate decrease). And you better be willing to make it impossible for the SS trust fund to be raided for general funds (and pay back the $3.5T, which is part of the $17T total debt, that has already been stolen).

Want the middle earners to not get so ****ed? Better be willing to raise the cap gains/div rates to reasonable levels and/or treat certain cap/div income as regular income (say, for example, if more than half of your income is from cap/div)

Rohirrim

10-23-2013, 01:31 PM

I think the bigger difference has to do with unity in government vs opposition. We all claim to hate it, but in reality there's little else more dangerous to us than unified thinking in Washington.

That surplus was the product of political conflict coupled with a relatively strong economy. But it can't be called the "Clinton Surplus" any more than the recent sequester could be called the "Obama Sequester"

They're not kings. Whether we'd like them to be or not.

Yeah. Right. The Founders created a government so it would become our enemy. And if the parties work together for the betterment (i.e., the "general welfare") of the American people, then we're in danger of tyranny.

As far as I'm concerned, corporate tyranny already reins.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 01:35 PM

Yeah. Right. The Founders created a government so it would become our enemy. And if the parties work together for the betterment (i.e., the "general welfare") of the American people, then we're in danger of tyranny.

As far as I'm concerned, corporate tyranny already reins.

That's the problem. Yep, government is inefficient and bloated and we all want less of it overall. We should be working to make it better, not making it worse which is all that's happening lately. The whack job libertarian bent going on that wants to pretend we can do without government is just living a delusion.

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 01:36 PM

The problem is the overall structure. Pointing at one part of the taxation is just self delusion:

The lower earners don't pay much income tax (for many zero), but they pay a lot of FICA tax (17%). The upper earners pay a low amount of income tax (for many zero or effectively zero) because they don't earn "regular" income, and pay very little FICA tax (FICA is regressive and only applies to "regular" income). In betweeners pay high FICA and high income tax.

Add in state and local taxes and it becomes comically (darkly) lopsided toward low and middle incomes.

But I agree, that the reform has to be across the board. Want the feel good prospect of reducing the 47% income tax gap, then you better be willing to uncap SS FICA (along with an overall rate decrease). And you better be willing to make it impossible for the SS trust fund to be raided for general funds (and pay back the $3.5T, which is part of the $17T total debt, that has already been stolen).

Want the middle earners to not get so ****ed? Better be willing to raise the cap gains/div rates to reasonable levels and/or treat certain cap/div income as regular income (say, for example, if more than half of your income is from cap/div)

You can't count FICA. Tell me this, for workers exempt from FICA who contribute to their own pension plans, do you consider those "Taxes" too?

If they dip into what they paid in FICA say by getting an EIC, are their Social Security benefits cut by the corresponding amount? Or does the SSA write off some of that paper-debt back to the general fund?

It's all a shell game.

As far as capital gains and the middle class, to maintain the 60%+ increase in spending since old Ebenezer Clinton was in office, the middle class is eventually going to have to pay. Big time. Because that's where the bulk of the country's income is.

Rohirrim

10-23-2013, 01:38 PM

The problem is the overall structure. Pointing at one part of the taxation is just self delusion:

The lower earners don't pay much income tax (for many zero), but they pay a lot of FICA tax (17%). The upper earners pay a low amount of income tax (for many zero or effectively zero) because they don't earn "regular" income, and pay very little FICA tax (FICA is regressive and only applies to "regular" income). In betweeners pay high FICA and high income tax.

Add in state and local taxes and it becomes comically (darkly) lopsided toward low and middle incomes.

But I agree, that the reform has to be across the board. Want the feel good prospect of reducing the 47% income tax gap, then you better be willing to uncap SS FICA (along with an overall rate decrease). And you better be willing to make it impossible for the SS trust fund to be raided for general funds (and pay back the $3.5T, which is part of the $17T total debt, that has already been stolen).

Want the middle earners to not get so ****ed? Better be willing to raise the cap gains/div rates to reasonable levels and/or treat certain cap/div income as regular income (say, for example, if more than half of your income is from cap/div)

Like I've said before on here, the young people in America are being groomed to blame all their economic ills on the Baby Boomers. Reality Alert! The Boomers already paid their way through the SS system in advance by agreeing to pay a higher rate since the 80s. The Boomer "bulge" was paid for. Then, the government stole the money to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Now, we have the worst income disparity in the industrialized world, and now, the Right's holy Imams like Paul Ryan, tell the youngsters that we can no longer afford to pay up.

In some circles, that would be called robbery.

Rohirrim

10-23-2013, 01:40 PM

That's the problem. Yep, government is inefficient and bloated and we all want less of it overall. We should be working to make it better, not making it worse which is all that's happening lately. The whack job libertarian bent going on that wants to pretend we can do without government is just living a delusion.

It makes sense that the corporate libertarians, like the Koch Bros., are peddling the message to the libertarian faithful that all they need to do is trust the "free market." Which is another way of saying, "Just give control to the corporations and they'll do what's best for all of us."

Meck77

10-23-2013, 01:45 PM

They don't want to fix it. They want to use it to destroy the other party. Big difference.

So Ro why would Obama go on record saying raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible and unpatriotic and now it's suddenly ok? Obama said EXACTLY the same thing the radicals are saying now. By your own definition is Obama not a radical for not wanting to raise the debt limit in 2005? Had we not done it then we would have defaulted on our debt just like we almost did last week.

What is Warren buffets greatest fear? See what he has to say about the fed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-20/buffett-says-federal-reserve-is-greatest-hedge-fund-in-history.html

Ro neither side can actually fix it without destroying it. They pretend to attack it. See the Obama video. It got him votes. Now the republican party is playing the same card.

I must be a TRUE radical because I'd rather see the system get shaken to it's core right now rather than having my future child and her child have to deal with THE MESS the last few generations have allowed to grow.

The industrial war complex is as big as ever. If obama was truly concerned about the middle class/or even had the power, he would have ripped that to shreds in year one. Here we are a half a decade later and we're digging ourselves deeper into wars around the globe.

Rohirrim

10-23-2013, 01:55 PM

So Ro why would Obama go on record saying raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible and unpatriotic and now it's suddenly ok? Obama said EXACTLY the same thing the radicals are saying now. By your own definition is Obama not a radical for not wanting to raise the debt limit in 2005? Had we not done it then we would have defaulted on our debt just like we almost did last week.

What is Warren buffets greatest fear? See what he has to say about the fed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-20/buffett-says-federal-reserve-is-greatest-hedge-fund-in-history.html

Ro neither side can actually fix it without destroying it. They pretend to attack it. See the Obama video. It got him votes. Now the republican party is playing the same card.

I must be a TRUE radical because I'd rather see the system get shaken to it's core right now rather than having my future child and her child have to deal with THE MESS the last few generations have allowed to grow.

Buffett praised Bernanke for signaling in 2008 that he’d do whatever was needed to stabilize markets and said the next chairman should follow his approach to economic stimulus. Investors expected a taper by Bernanke, who said Sept. 18 that he wants to see further gains in U.S. employment before scaling back the bond purchases.
“He says he’s going to keep doing it until he sees more improvement in the economy, and I think he’s been mildly disappointed -- not hugely disappointed -- in the rate of improvement in the economy in the last few years,” Buffett said. “He’s not pre-judging exactly when it’s going to happen, he’s telling you the conditions under which he’ll change.”

In other words, the Right is not doing anybody any favors with their constant c#ck blocking of the economy.

You don't capture a tiger by walking up to it and throwing a head lock on it. When Obama came in, the economy was on the precipice of going into a Great Depression tail spin. If government didn't prop it up, there certainly wasn't some J.P. Morgan sitting around waiting to do it. The Fed exists because Morgan proved the value of the hedge concept during the TR era. Sure, it needs to be regulated by a government of, by and for the people. There are those for whom greed is crack. They must always be regulated. But that doesn't mean you just throw everything overboard in the belief that you'll then have smooth sailing, which is what the libertarians believe. The application of libertarian principles just means the corporations grab ALL power.

Here's the facts, the best times this country ever saw were when progressive/liberal government policies prevailed. Every time the supply side/give the money to the rich policies have prevailed, this country has gone in the toilet. Experience is the best teacher.

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 02:02 PM

Buffett praised Bernanke for signaling in 2008 that he’d do whatever was needed to stabilize markets and said the next chairman should follow his approach to economic stimulus. Investors expected a taper by Bernanke, who said Sept. 18 that he wants to see further gains in U.S. employment before scaling back the bond purchases.
“He says he’s going to keep doing it until he sees more improvement in the economy, and I think he’s been mildly disappointed -- not hugely disappointed -- in the rate of improvement in the economy in the last few years,” Buffett said. “He’s not pre-judging exactly when it’s going to happen, he’s telling you the conditions under which he’ll change.”

In other words, the Right is not doing anybody any favors with their constant c#ck blocking of the economy

Absolutely. The Solar Panel Installer/ Federal House Winterizer Economy would be in full swing by now if not for these nasty republicanses. LOL

What master stroke idea is it you thought Obama had (outside of burning ****loads of cash) that would drive an economic explosion?

Rohirrim

10-23-2013, 02:15 PM

Absolutely. The Solar Panel Installer/ Federal House Winterizer Economy would be in full swing by now if not for these nasty republicanses. LOL

What master stroke idea is it you thought Obama had (outside of burning ****loads of cash) that would drive an economic explosion?

You'll never get your head out of your ass so I'm going to stop recommending that you do so.

Politifacts:
Romney used the number "$90 billion" five times in the first presidential debate, claiming, "In one year, (Obama) provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world … into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1."

That is incorrect in several ways. That $90 billion, as described in a report provided by the Romney campaign, wasn’t provided in one year, wasn’t distributed primarily via tax breaks, wasn’t primarily provided directly to companies, wasn’t primarily spent on solar and wind, and wasn’t spent at all on Fisker or Tesla.

In reality, more than 60 percent of it was directed to state and local governments and utility companies for energy efficiency, transportation and electrical infrastructure .

We rate his claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-provided-90-billion/

The massive amount of stimulus money went toward keeping banks and huge insurance corps. from failing. Had they failed, we would be in a Great Depression right now. Where Obama failed is in not prosecuting the crooks and in codifying the concept of too-big-to-fail.

Your constant mis-characterizations are partisan as well as juvenile. Grow up.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 02:32 PM

You can't count FICA.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Why, because it doesn't fit your narrative?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 02:33 PM

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Why, because it doesn't fit your narrative?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

How about mandated insurance premiums? Are those 'taxes' now too? LOL

You do know what the "I" in FICA stands for.

BroncoBeavis

10-23-2013, 02:35 PM

You'll never get your head out of your ass so I'm going to stop recommending that you do so.

Politifacts:
Romney used the number "$90 billion" five times in the first presidential debate, claiming, "In one year, (Obama) provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world … into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1."

That is incorrect in several ways. That $90 billion, as described in a report provided by the Romney campaign, wasn’t provided in one year, wasn’t distributed primarily via tax breaks, wasn’t primarily provided directly to companies, wasn’t primarily spent on solar and wind, and wasn’t spent at all on Fisker or Tesla.

In reality, more than 60 percent of it was directed to state and local governments and utility companies for energy efficiency, transportation and electrical infrastructure .

We rate his claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-provided-90-billion/

The massive amount of stimulus money went toward keeping banks and huge insurance corps. from failing. Had they failed, we would be in a Great Depression right now. Where Obama failed is in not prosecuting the crooks and in codifying the concept of too-big-to-fail.

Your constant mis-characterizations are partisan as well as juvenile. Grow up.

I asked you what big new world-changing economic idea O brought to the table. You took the opportunity to argue with Mitt Romney. LOL

Meck77

10-23-2013, 02:36 PM

It's so funny to see us all go round and round. The reason we do is because there is no answer and there is nobody to blame. It's the beauty of the two party system the FED loves. You either blame the party in office or you blame the one before them. It's always a moving target that can never but hit.

Meanwhile the debt limit rises, the fed's owners prosper, and the peons fight over the scraps and bitch at one another. Pretty funny but sad at the same time.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 02:44 PM

Ro neither side can actually fix it without destroying it. They pretend to attack it. See the Obama video. It got him votes. Now the republican party is playing the same card.

I must be a TRUE radical because I'd rather see the system get shaken to it's core right now rather than having my future child and her child have to deal with THE MESS the last few generations have allowed to grow.

We've been worse off (in terms of debt and deficit) (see: post WWII). The hysteria of "just let it crash, it's horrible" just doesn't fit with reality.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 02:46 PM

How about mandated insurance premiums? Are those 'taxes' now too? LOL

You do know what the "I" in FICA stands for.

Ahh look, now you dive to the diversionary tactics, right on schedule!

:welcome:

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 02:48 PM

Hey Meck, are you in favor of getting rid of fractional reserve banking? If so, what do you propose to replace it with to enable banks to loan money?

Meck77

10-23-2013, 03:04 PM

Hey Meck, are you in favor of getting rid of fractional reserve banking? If so, what do you propose to replace it with to enable banks to loan money?

I'm certainly not opposed to banks lending out deposits. To the tune of 90%? No.

I bank with several different banks and have been turned away for trying to withdraw $10,000. 10 friggen k. They told me "You have to call ahead". The system is flat out not sustainable as it sits now. It's one reason to hold other forms of currency and real assets. There is a risk of holding too many digital $$ that are systematically being devalued.

I've worked in banks and witnessed the crooked lending practices first hand. Corrupt as hell.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 03:08 PM

I'm certainly not opposed to banks lending out deposits. To the tune of 90%? No.

I bank with several different banks and have been turned away for trying to withdraw $10,000. 10 friggen k. They told me "You have to call ahead". The system is flat out not sustainable as it sits now. It's one reason to hold other forms of currency and real assets. There is a risk of holding too many digital $$ that are systematically being devalued.

I've worked in banks and witnessed the crooked lending practices first hand. Corrupt as hell.

So, we agree then that FRB is necessary, and that at regulations are necessary. What about Glass-Steagall?

Meck77

10-23-2013, 03:21 PM

So, we agree then that FRB is necessary, and that at regulations are necessary. What about Glass-Steagall?

Ok so slow down. Go ahead and answer the questions I asked you earlier and I will waltz down your yellow brick road aka the unsustainable $17 trillion dollar hole.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 03:29 PM

Ok so slow down. Go ahead and answer the questions I asked you earlier and I will waltz down your yellow brick road aka the unsustainable $17 trillion dollar hole.

I already did provide a response to your questions, including the silly one.

Arkie

10-23-2013, 07:33 PM

What's worse? A $500 debt or a $5,000 debt?

$5,000, but if debt doesn't matter to you then quit whining for the rich to pay more taxes. We don't need revenue. We'll just add it to the tab.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 07:46 PM

$5,000,

Wrong answer. It's all relative. $5,000 is only worse than $500 if you have 1/10 the income/gdp.

Just like a $500 doctor bill can be devastating to some, but a $5,000 doctor bill can be lost pocket change to others.

Debt does matter, but only on a relative scale.

but if debt doesn't matter to you then quit whining for the rich to pay more taxes.

Don't get your panties in a twist.

We don't need revenue. We'll just add it to the tab.

We need both more revenue and cuts, and we need to do it on a time scale that minimizes the impact to the economy. It's the only sensible thing to do.

Arkie

10-23-2013, 08:16 PM

Wrong answer. It's all relative. $5,000 is only worse than $500 if you have 1/10 the income/gdp.

Just like a $500 doctor bill can be devastating to some, but a $5,000 doctor bill can be lost pocket change to others.

Debt does matter, but only on a relative scale.

Don't get your panties in a twist.

We need both more revenue and cuts, and we need to do it on a time scale that minimizes the impact to the economy. It's the only sensible thing to do.

We need to cut spending and let revenue catch up. It's unrealistic to meet halfway, or expect revenue to keep up with the parabolic rise in spending over the last 30 years. The recent fall in revenue was due to the recession. It always falls during recessions. It was at record highs in 2007 before the recession and is approaching that level again.

Fedaykin

10-23-2013, 08:58 PM

We need to cut spending and let revenue catch up. It's unrealistic to meet halfway, or expect revenue to keep up with the parabolic rise in spending over the last 30 years. The recent fall in revenue was due to the recession. It always falls during recessions. It was at record highs in 2007 before the recession and is approaching that level again.

B.S. Revenue, as a percentage of GDP, is near a 60 year low (as of 2012 enacted values). It was 15.7% in 2012, whereas the average is 18.1%. That's a shortfall (just from AVERAGE) of $376 billion (about 40% of the projected 2013 deficit).

But I agree we can't keep up up with the spending, which is of course why I'm not arguing for that, but rather taking the sane approach of raising revenues AND CUTTING SPENDING.

And it's not like I'm arguing for some massive increase, just an increase back to around AVERAGE over 60 years.

And revenue wasn't even anywhere near record highs in 2007. It was around average, briefly.

But I think there may be some truth to it. He doesn't think CO2 "causes" climate change anymore than debt. I think they probably both do, only debt correlates to climate change even better. Debt is a measuring stick of our willingness to be wasteful and live beyond our means and the environment's means. We've gotten use to kicking the can down the road and living large. Climate change is one of the consequences and the fiscal crisis is another.

But I think there may be some truth to it. He doesn't think CO2 "causes" climate change anymore than debt. I think they probably both do, only debt correlates to climate change even better. Debt is a measuring stick of our willingness to be wasteful and live beyond our means and the environment's means. We've gotten use to kicking the can down the road and living large. Climate change is one of the consequences and the fiscal crisis is another.

Typical stupid WTFWT article.

Arkie

10-24-2013, 11:48 AM

Typical stupid WTFWT article.

It's just an observation. Climate change has correlated better to debt than CO2.